http://www.jewishworldreview.com --
ALL day Sunday, as the hour of Monday
morning's scheduled execution of Timothy
McVeigh drew closer, there was considerable
consternation over McVeigh's last meal.

His choice, if any, of the meal had not been
publicly announced -- and prison officials knew
they would have to hustle to make sure the killer of 168 men, women and
children would be able to dine on exactly what he demanded.

That's customary with killers on death row -- they are invited to select their
final menu, from the prison kitchen or from a restaurant. Anything they want,
within reason. Ted Bundy had a medium-rare steak, eggs over easy, hash
browns; Gary Gilmore had hamburgers, eggs and potatoes; John Wayne
Gacy had fried chicken, french fries and fresh strawberries....

For all the talk about whether the death penalty is just, little has been said
about this tradition of allowing murderers to hand-pick the contents of their
last meals. As if it's not bad enough that the killers' final hours are covered on
live television like the inauguration of a president, there is this custom of
murderers choosing their meals as if they're at the Ritz calling room service.

There's something about the tradition that is absurd, hypocritical and insulting
to the memory of the victims of murderers, and to the victims' families.

Prisoners on death row for killing people did not give their victims a choice of
a last meal -- indeed, virtually all of the people who are killed by murderers
do not know they are eating their last meal when they eat it. They fully expect
to be having another meal -- and then someone ends their life.

That's what McVeigh did. Not one of the 168 human beings he killed knew
that they had already enjoyed their last meal. McVeigh determined that they
would never sit at a dinner table with their families again -- or see another
sunrise, or feel the warm breeze of a spring afternoon, or hear another chord
of their favorite music.

Murderers, by their own choice, rob their victims of everything. Last meal?
The murderers decide that their victims have already had their last meals.

So why does society twist itself into such contortions to allow the killers to
select their final menus? Is it some kind of reward?

And if so, for what? There are many people in this country who routinely go
hungry -- and who certainly are not in a position to demand any meal that
they choose. The family members of murder victims are aware every morning
and every night that they will never be able to share a meal with the people
they loved -- the people who were killed by the prisoners on death row.
What an affront -- to in any way beyond the basics cater to people who have
committed crimes this terrible.

Which brings us to the hypocrisy.

By providing killers with their custom-choice of a last meal (paid for with your
taxes), is society trying to apologize for what it is about to do -- is society
saying that, even though we are about to execute you, we want to show you
that we are sorry for what we're making you go through?

If that is the case, it's nonsense. Capital punishment is society's ultimate
statement of abhorrence for crimes that are the ultimate violation of humanity.
Once society has somberly agreed that such a punishment is justified under
the law, it is ridiculous to then try to soften the moment by telling the killer to
choose anything he wants to dine on. This trivializes what is transpiring. Either
society means what it says, or it doesn't -- and if it means that a prisoner has
done something so appalling that he must die for it, then the
choose-any-meal-you-desire tradition has no logic. It is frivolous. It demeans
the seriousness of what is taking place.

The people who deserved the choice of a last meal are no longer alive. Their
killers robbed them of that. In McVeigh's case, 168 people sat down for a
meal six years ago having no idea that they would never have a chance to sit
down for another one. A choice? He robbed them of every choice they might
ever have had. And he didn't even know them.

McVeigh was sentenced to die for a reason -- 168 of them. It's time to do
away with the dead-wrong symbolism of the choose-your-final-menu
tradition. Even opponents of the death penalty ought to agree with that. Either
we mean what we are doing or we don't. And if we mean it, we ought to act
like
it.

JWR contributor Bob Greene is a novelist and columnist. Send your comments to him by clicking here.